Vivian H Lyons1, Lingyu Li2, James P Hughes2, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 357236, Seattle, WA 98195-7236, USA; Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, 401 Broadway Avenue, 4th Floor, Seattle, WA 98122, USA. Electronic address: vlyons@uw.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 357232, Seattle, WA 98195-7232, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Box 357236, Seattle, WA 98195-7236, USA; Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, 401 Broadway Avenue, 4th Floor, Seattle, WA 98122, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Stepped-wedge design (SWD) cluster-randomized trials have traditionally been used for evaluating a single intervention. We aimed to explore design variants suitable for evaluating multiple interventions in an SWD trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified four specific variants of the traditional SWD that would allow two interventions to be conducted within a single cluster-randomized trial: concurrent, replacement, supplementation, and factorial SWDs. These variants were chosen to flexibly accommodate study characteristics that limit a one-size-fits-all approach for multiple interventions. RESULTS: In the concurrent SWD, each cluster receives only one intervention, unlike the other variants. The replacement SWD supports two interventions that will not or cannot be used at the same time. The supplementation SWD is appropriate when the second intervention requires the presence of the first intervention, and the factorial SWD supports the evaluation of intervention interactions. The precision for estimating intervention effects varies across the four variants. CONCLUSION: Selection of the appropriate design variant should be driven by the research question while considering the trade-off between the number of steps, number of clusters, restrictions for concurrent implementation of the interventions, lingering effects of each intervention, and precision of the intervention effect estimates.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Stepped-wedge design (SWD) cluster-randomized trials have traditionally been used for evaluating a single intervention. We aimed to explore design variants suitable for evaluating multiple interventions in an SWD trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified four specific variants of the traditional SWD that would allow two interventions to be conducted within a single cluster-randomized trial: concurrent, replacement, supplementation, and factorial SWDs. These variants were chosen to flexibly accommodate study characteristics that limit a one-size-fits-all approach for multiple interventions. RESULTS: In the concurrent SWD, each cluster receives only one intervention, unlike the other variants. The replacement SWD supports two interventions that will not or cannot be used at the same time. The supplementation SWD is appropriate when the second intervention requires the presence of the first intervention, and the factorial SWD supports the evaluation of intervention interactions. The precision for estimating intervention effects varies across the four variants. CONCLUSION: Selection of the appropriate design variant should be driven by the research question while considering the trade-off between the number of steps, number of clusters, restrictions for concurrent implementation of the interventions, lingering effects of each intervention, and precision of the intervention effect estimates.
Authors: Louise C Johns; Joseph E Oliver; Mizanur Khondoker; Majella Byrne; Suzanne Jolley; Til Wykes; Candice Joseph; Lucy Butler; Thomas Craig; Eric M J Morris Journal: J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry Date: 2015-10-08
Authors: Fan Li; James P Hughes; Karla Hemming; Monica Taljaard; Edward R Melnick; Patrick J Heagerty Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Erich M Dress; Jaspal Singh; Brian A Bayes; Marzana Chowdhury; Dylan S Small; Timothy Hetherington; Lindsay Plickert; Michael E Detsky; Jason N Doctor; Michael O Harhay; Henry L Burke; Michael B Green; Toan Huynh; D Matthew Sullivan; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-02
Authors: Lila J Finney Rutten; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Jennifer L St Sauver; Ivana T Croghan; Debra J Jacobson; Patrick M Wilson; Jeph Herrin; Robert M Jacobson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 7.327